The Devil Is in the Details: A Randomized Experiment Assessing the Effect of Providing Examples in a Survey Question across Countries

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY Field Methods Pub Date : 2022-09-16 DOI:10.1177/1525822X221115506
E. Aizpurua, Gianmaria Bottoni, R. Fitzgerald
{"title":"The Devil Is in the Details: A Randomized Experiment Assessing the Effect of Providing Examples in a Survey Question across Countries","authors":"E. Aizpurua, Gianmaria Bottoni, R. Fitzgerald","doi":"10.1177/1525822X221115506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the widespread use of examples in survey questions, very few studies have examined their impact on survey responses, and the evidence is mainly based on data collected in the United States using questionnaires in English. This study builds on previous research by examining the effects of providing examples using data from a cross-national probability-based web panel implemented in Estonia (n = 730), Great Britain (n = 685), and Slovenia (n = 529) during Round 8 of the European Social Survey (2017/18). Respondents were randomly assigned a survey question measuring confidence in social media using Facebook and Twitter as examples, or another condition in which no examples were offered. The results show that confidence in social media was significantly lower in the example condition, although the effect size was small. Confidence in social media varied across countries, and the effect of providing examples was heterogeneous across countries and education levels. The implications of these findings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48060,"journal":{"name":"Field Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Field Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221115506","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of examples in survey questions, very few studies have examined their impact on survey responses, and the evidence is mainly based on data collected in the United States using questionnaires in English. This study builds on previous research by examining the effects of providing examples using data from a cross-national probability-based web panel implemented in Estonia (n = 730), Great Britain (n = 685), and Slovenia (n = 529) during Round 8 of the European Social Survey (2017/18). Respondents were randomly assigned a survey question measuring confidence in social media using Facebook and Twitter as examples, or another condition in which no examples were offered. The results show that confidence in social media was significantly lower in the example condition, although the effect size was small. Confidence in social media varied across countries, and the effect of providing examples was heterogeneous across countries and education levels. The implications of these findings are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
细节决定成败:一项随机实验,评估在各国调查问题中提供例子的效果
尽管在调查问题中广泛使用了例子,但很少有研究考察它们对调查结果的影响,证据主要基于在美国使用英语问卷收集的数据。这项研究建立在先前研究的基础上,通过使用爱沙尼亚(n=730)、英国(n=685)和斯洛文尼亚(n=529)在欧洲社会调查第8轮(2017/18)期间实施的基于跨国家概率的网络小组的数据来检验提供示例的效果。受访者被随机分配了一个调查问题,以脸书和推特为例,或其他没有提供例子的情况下,测量他们对社交媒体的信心。结果表明,在示例条件下,对社交媒体的信心显著降低,尽管影响范围很小。各国对社交媒体的信心各不相同,提供例子的效果因国家和教育水平而异。讨论了这些发现的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Field Methods
Field Methods Multiple-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Field Methods (formerly Cultural Anthropology Methods) is devoted to articles about the methods used by field wzorkers in the social and behavioral sciences and humanities for the collection, management, and analysis data about human thought and/or human behavior in the natural world. Articles should focus on innovations and issues in the methods used, rather than on the reporting of research or theoretical/epistemological questions about research. High-quality articles using qualitative and quantitative methods-- from scientific or interpretative traditions-- dealing with data collection and analysis in applied and scholarly research from writers in the social sciences, humanities, and related professions are all welcome in the pages of the journal.
期刊最新文献
ChatGPTest: Opportunities and Cautionary Tales of Utilizing AI for Questionnaire Pretesting What predicts willingness to participate in a follow-up panel study among respondents to a national web/mail survey? Invited Review: Collecting Data through Dyadic Interviews: A Systematic Review Offering Web Response as a Refusal Conversion Technique in a Mixed-mode Survey Network of Categories: A Method to Aggregate Egocentric Network Survey Data into a Whole Network Structure
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1